E-book customer sharing with anti-piracy group BREIN faces political backlash

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by samy2

Really funny what you're writing. The fact is the one who use piracy websites can be sure about his privacy. There are no watermarks an other stuff which refers to the downloader. But if you buy in ebook, you have either DRM and/or watermarks. So if you give your reader with Ebooks to another person or just lost a reader or just a USB-Stick, you may be accused to piracy, because someone else put this ebooks to a piracy website.

If you really wanna fight against this you have to control the complete internet and every site every person looks at, and very file one download or send to other people. And thats for sure a matter of privacy.

Books are out there on pirate websites often before they are published. The chances of anyone stealing an ereader because they can upload books are pretty slim unless it is a malevolent family member or acquaintance perhaps trying to get you in trouble. Or a really sad person hoping for attention. Could happen but not likely. And of course most people would report it to someone if they lost their ereader.

And often there is identifying information on other stuff. Films released for review or preshowings often have a number referring to the theatre it was sent to. But how in the world do you think that is relevant I must ask. It is like a little kid who is being punished saying but my sister did it too, you just didn't see her. Doesn't make it right.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

In Canada, there is, of course, the fee paid to music copyright holders when you buy blank media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...ing_Collective

But, if the above link is correct, authors, and both book and software publishers, get nothing from that fund. And, as far as I can tell, the Canadian free pass on some downloading does not apply to books. So, if Canada is typical of the high civilized countries you are thinking of, this may not apply to the thread.

When an author writes a book, and a publisher releases it, there is an implicit social contract that their intellectual property will be protected in roughly the manner prescribed by law. The author couldn't reasonably think that there will be zero shoplifting and piracy. But there's a reasonable expectation that some effort will be made to keep down the rate at which books are appropriated contrary to copyright, especially in the more prosperous nations, and especially in the country the book is published in.

Compare this to the situation where paper books are borrowed and sold. The author, when writing the book, had no expectation this would be restricted, so there's no unfairness involved.

Legislatures could fairly pass a law stating that, going forward, all new eBooks can be freely pirated. While fair, I don't think it would be kind to authors, and editors, and the families they support. And I think it would harm me as a reader.



Suppose my boss tells me he isn't planning to pay me for the work I did last week. But if I agree to charge what he calls "better prices" for my labor, he might pay me next week.

Putting aside my emotions concerning the boss, it's just not rational to think my boss is going to pay me that "better" wage. If I am willing to work for zero wages, the official price of my labor becomes irrelevant. We as thrifty readers are that boss. Personally, if I was allowed, in all senses of the word, to download a book for free, I wouldn't download it for $10, or $5, or $1, or one cent.


A mistake. More used cars, or books, sold means higher resale value. Higher resale value and used item cost means publishers can charge more for the new item.

Good post overall, and I agree with most.

Ebook piracy becoming legal or even regarded by most as okay would not affect me much or those of my generation. Us baby boomers have made our decisions in this matter and say it is legal or illegal is not likely to change our ethics or our habits. We either do it now or we don't.

The world would suffer IMO opinion, not from the lack of bestsellers, but from the lack of rewards for achievement, much as you said in the boss story.

Many writers are high achievers in other areas. I often am told I should write a book, and of course I could write a book, good or bad, but I am too lazy to even try. Lots of things I could do if I actually tried, maybe successfully, maybe not. Sadly I will never know because I seem to lack the jam to try.

Authors are generally people who put their time and energy and even their egos on the line. Many are successful at lucrative and influential careers and have to put in extra time in an already crowded life to even write a book. And of course if the book is a flop they risk being branded a failure and ridiculed by their peers.

Many authors I admire have accomplished pretty substantial things in other fields. Many have contributed in some way to the betterment of society with no financial incentive. A lot more than me or most people I know. Take away the financial incentive to write even if they don't actually need the money might take away the desire to do anything that would benefit the people who are treating them badly.

Not a pretty picture.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

What if I don't break any laws? Why is it that in some countries (highly civilized countries, I may add) there is no breaking of the law involved when a private individual downloads content that might infringe copyright? Does this make the entire country unlawful, illegitimate, immoral? I am still trying to understand: Are you against people who might be breaking the law, or are you against those who download "pirated" content?



Sounds to me as if you're shooting at the person now, not at his argument.

It is all about morals and ethics I think. I can do lots of things legally that don't break any laws but are things I find more morally repugnant than stealing. Kurt Vonnegut said, I believe, that many of the worst atrocities committed by man were committed in the name of religion. I think he cited the children's crusade in that preface or article. I would include greed or general stupidity with religion, but can't disagree. Rwanda genocide makes petty ebook downloading insignificant and while not legal outside Rwanda, wasn't really even censored by most of the world when it was happenin.

So I doubt anyone would say a country itself was illegal because downloading pirated content was not illegal, and I live in such a country.

I certainly can't say because their are no laws against something it is the right thing to do. Slavery was legal once after all, and it was once perfectly legal for a man to beat his wife or his servants in jurisdictions where it was illegal for him to beat his dog.

Helen

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Those are cases where a majority has voted to take away rights from a minority (the content creators and sellers). Is that highly civilized?

As opposed to a very wealthy minority (the content publishers) being responsible for rights* being taken away from the majority? Yes, the democratic process is more civilized.

* Right to make copies of purchased digital product, right to re-sell what was purchased, right to return it if a digital product is inferior and doesn't meet the buyer's expectations (forced to buy the cat in the bag), right of proper ownership of what was purchased (the trickery where what you buy is not a product but a subscription or license that can unilaterally be removed, and so forth.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Mivo

As opposed to a very wealthy minority (the content publishers) being responsible for rights* being taken away from the majority? Yes, the democratic process is more civilized.

* Right to make copies of purchased digital product, right to re-sell what was purchased, right to return it if a digital product is inferior and doesn't meet the buyer's expectations (forced to buy the cat in the bag), right of proper ownership of what was purchased (the trickery where what you buy is not a product but a subscription or license that can unilaterally be removed, and so forth.

Authors in general are a wealthy minority? Employees working for publishers are? The " "right' to just take what you want without consent from the owner" has been taken away from the majority. And so it should be.

In case you haven't noticed: on Amazon you can return any ebook. You can download samples everywhere. And no, they cannot (legally) unilatterally be removed (illegal methods of taking merchandise back are available for any physical item, too). If you don't like the conditions the right thing to do is not to buy the item in question and just read something else.

And in any case, other people's (perceived) wrongdoings are no excuse for one's own.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Authors in general are a wealthy minority? Employees working for publishers are? The " "right' to just take what you want without consent from the owner" has been taken away from the majority. And so it should be.

The entire concept of "intellectual property" is still a fairly new thing, and it is not undisputed. One could make a case that it is uncivilized to withhold knowledge, e.g. textbooks, from those who cannot afford to pay for it. Numerous textbooks are not available in libraries.

Similarly, copyright is not undisputed, either, and the Swiss law makers have a different take on it. Why does that make them anything other than civilized? They looked at studies, too, and found that the industry's claims are exaggerated and unjustified. I prefer that approach over those laws that are the result of massive lobbying.

DRM and copyrights don't just take away the right to distribute something (I can go along with that, though I disagree with the length of copyrights.), but also the right to re-sell what you paid for and to duplicate for personal use (it's illegal in most EU countries and the US to circumvent the DRM). Amazon's refund policy is voluntary, it's not a right. In my country, you have no right to return a digital product.

"So it should be" is an opinion, not a fact. In Switzerland, it isn't that way, and the Swiss law makers felt that that is how it should be. Personally, I would agree that it is too much freedom and doesn't sufficiently address the needs of the content creators, but if I had to decide between too much freedom and too little freedom, I'd always opt for the former.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Mivo

The entire concept of "intellectual property" is still a fairly new thing, and it is not undisputed. One could make a case that it is uncivilized to withhold knowledge, e.g. textbooks, from those who cannot afford to pay for it. Numerous textbooks are not available in libraries.

Why should the owners of intellectual property rights pay for those who cannot afford it? If society does want to do that then the taxpayers should pay for it. Which is what some countries are trying to do by imposing a surcharge on all recordable media. But that only means more power to those who distribute the funds, a lot of waste, and unfairness (usually the well connected get money, not those whose works have actually been downloaded --- besides a lot of people have to pay who never download anything).

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Those are cases where a majority has voted to take away rights from a minority (the content creators and sellers). Is that highly civilized?

As civilized as putting a time limit on copyright.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

400 years ago consumers had no way of copying a work (except by hand).

But they could copy the work by hand and publishers still distribute illegal copies, like it happened with Amazon and "1984". But the publishers aren't called pirates for doing something that would have gotten them called pirates 400 years ago. So the meaning changed.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Those are cases where a majority has voted to take away rights from a minority (the content creators and sellers). Is that highly civilized?

You can't say that they are taking away rights if downloading ebooks was never illegal. In other countries, where it was voted that downloading books is illegal the law makers have taken rights from the consumers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You can't say that they are taking away rights if downloading ebooks was never illegal. In other countries, where it was voted that downloading books is illegal the law makers have taken rights from the consumers.

That's what "society" is; a set of restrictions on the absolute freedom of the individual for the overall good. I don't see how a "right" to take anything you want without paying for it benefits society. I certainly wouldn't write software unless I had an expectation of being able to sell it rather than have it taken by anyone who wanted it.

[samy2]

In almost all countries there is some kind of compensation payment, because costumers can free share content.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's what "society" is; a set of restrictions on the absolute freedom of the individual for the overall good.

The problem is that there are *a lot* of people who think that anything goes as long as there isn't a law to prohibit it.

I see it with big companies: they act like small children do, alsways doing things that are on the edge (or just over it) of what is allowed, until they are stopped short by a new law. And then, they find a different way to do the same again, or something new of which they *know* that it probably would not have been allowed, had someone thought about it before and made a law against it. So, they start doing it until somebody with the correct authority notices and makes a new law.

Like so:

Child / Company: *Do some stuff*
Parent / Law maker: "No! Not allowed!"
Child / Company: "Aaaaw!" *pout, pout*

And 5 minutes to 5 months later (depending if it's a child or a company), it starts all over again, and again, and again, and again.

And as I said, many people and companies think like that. "If there's no law to prohibit it, then it's fine. If there *is* a law and I don't get caught, then it's fine too."

It's the reason why I have the overwhelming feeling that many people and companies have no morals, ethics or common sense whatsoever.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's what "society" is; a set of restrictions on the absolute freedom of the individual for the overall good. I don't see how a "right" to take anything you want without paying for it benefits society. I certainly wouldn't write software unless I had an expectation of being able to sell it rather than have it taken by anyone who wanted it.

You do realize that people in the Netherlands still buy books, even if it isn't illegal to download, right?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Mivo

The entire concept of "intellectual property" is still a fairly new thing, and it is not undisputed. One could make a case that it is uncivilized to withhold knowledge, e.g. textbooks, from those who cannot afford to pay for it. Numerous textbooks are not available in libraries.

It is possibly uncivilized, but is the onus on the publisher/author. I saw an article a while back (cannot remember where) that indicated that US Universities were moving towards providing course material such as books for free.

My opinion is that education should be provided free to all that qualify. No sense sending a non literate person to medical school. A minimum food and rent subsidy should be provided to those unable to pay for it. I know we have scholarships and student loans but it is not enough for many.

I think it is incumbent on society as a whole to provide necessary books, and authors and publishers would pay along with the rest of us through taxes.

And most of us have access to libraries with paper copies at least of popular fiction. I don't at present, but luckily I can access my home libraries ebooks

I don't expect Safeway to provide free or low cost food for the needy, and they are possibly wealthier than the publishers. Be nice if they did of course, but soon they would probably be out of business.

Helen

[nightlurker]

Originally Posted by frahse

I can see the slogan now: "Hang them first and let God sort them out!"

pedant on:

"Kill them. For the Lord know those that are His own." or exactly as said "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
Abbot Arnaud Amalric during the Albigensian Crusade.

pedant off.

Sorry, one of my favorite quotes of all time should be a mainstay of British law when dealing with our politicians.